Speaking up behaviors and safety climate in an Austrian university hospital

Classification of influencing factors of speaking-up behaviour in hospitals: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Speaking up among healthcare professionals plays an essential role in improving patient safety and quality of care, yet it remains complex and multifaceted behaviour. Despite awareness of potential risks and adverse outcomes for patients, professionals often hesitate to voice concerns due to various influencing factors. This complexity has encouraged research into the determinants of speaking-up behaviour in hospital settings. This review synthesises these factors into a multi-layered framework. It aims to provide a more comprehensive perspective on the influencing factors, which provides guidance for interventions aimed at fostering environments contributing to speaking up in hospitals.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted in November 2024, searching databases: PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science. Following PRISMA guidelines and the three stages for thematic synthesis, we developed the classification of influencing factors. Out of 1,735 articles identified articles, 413 duplicates were removed, 1,322 titles and abstracts were screened, and 152 full texts (plus six additional articles) were assessed. Ultimately, 45 articles met the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

The review categorised influencing factors into four categories: individual (29 articles, 64%), relational (21 articles, 47%), contextual (19 articles, 42%), and organisational (26 articles, 58%). These categories encompass motivating, hindering and trade-off factors affecting speaking up among healthcare professionals in hospitals.

CONCLUSIONS

The multi-layered framework highlights the dynamic interplay of factors influencing speaking up among healthcare professionals. A systems approach is essential for identifying barriers and enablers and designing effective speaking up interventions. This framework serves as a foundation for more focused research and practical guidance, enabling healthcare leaders to address barriers across all categories. By fostering environments that support open communication, organisations can enhance patient safety and quality of care.

Healthcare professionals' perception of the World Health Organization Surgical Safety Checklist and psychological safety: a cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND

The Surgical Safety Checklist (SSC) is a cornerstone of ensuring the safety and accuracy of communication among interdisciplinary teams in the operating room. Central to the successful implementation of such a checklist is the concept of psychological safety. Despite the extensive body of research on the checklists' efficacy, the association between healthcare professionals' (HCPs) perceptions of the checklist and their level of psychological safety remains uninvestigated. This study attempts to address this gap by examining how their perceptions of the checklist intersect with their sense of psychological safety.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey comprising 25 items was conducted from November 2022 to January 2023 on; Demographics (6 items), the SSC (12 items), and the Psychological Safety Scale (7 items). We invited 125 HCPs from five different professional groups in the operation ward to complete the survey.

RESULTS

Of the 125 asked to participate, 107 responded, and 100 of whom completed the entire survey. The level of psychological safety increased by 1.25 (95 % CI 0.36 to 2.14, p=0.006) per one-point increase of the perception that colleagues listen when checklist items are being reviewed, and increased by 1.1 (95% CI 0.4 to 1.7, p=0.002) per one-point increase in the perception that the checklist enhances interdisciplinary teamwork, and increased by 0.86 (95% CI 0.15 to 1.57, p=0.02) per one-point increase in the perception that the checklist provides structure in the operating room. Conversely, the level of psychological safety decreased by 1.4 (95 % CI 0.5 to 2.3, p=0.004) per one-point increase in the perception that the checklist is time-consuming.

CONCLUSION

Our findings reveal a significant association between psychological safety levels and perceptions of the SSC. Increased psychological safety was linked to more positive views on the checklist's role in enhancing interdisciplinary teamwork, creating structure and attentiveness among colleagues. While seeing the checklist as time-consuming was associated with a lower psychological safety rating. These results suggest that psychological safety influences how individuals view and engage with patient safety measures like the checklist, highlighting the importance of fostering a supportive environment to optimise safety practice.

Experiences of Nurses Speaking Up in Healthcare Settings: A Qualitative Metasynthesis

AIM

To systematically review and synthesise qualitative research on nurses' experiences of speaking up in various contexts and to identify factors facilitating or impeding such a behaviour.

DESIGN

This review was conducted as a qualitative metasynthesis, utilising the qualitative meta-ethnography approach.

METHODS

A total of 6250 articles were screened. Two reviewers screened titles, abstracts and full texts. A total of 15 studies were included in this review. Researchers conducted a quality appraisal using the JBI critical appraisal checklist for qualitative research. An a priori protocol was created and registered on the Open Science Framework.

DATA SOURCES

Literature searches were conducted in five international bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global) and five Korean databases (RISS, KISS, DBpia, KCI and NDSL).

RESULTS

Three main themes were identified from the 15 studies used in the metasynthesis: (1) decisional complexity of speaking up, (2) motivators for speaking up and (3) barriers to speaking up. Nurses experienced challenges in speaking up. They were, and continue to be, concerned about negative responses. Hierarchy structure and poor work environment were identified as barriers to speaking up; professional responsibility and a supportive atmosphere were identified as facilitators for speaking up.

CONCLUSIONS

This review synthesised nurses' experiences of speaking up and influencing factors. Speaking up is crucial for nurses to improve patient safety, as frontline nurses are ideally positioned to observe early indicators of unsafe conditions in healthcare delivery.

IMPACT

Identified motivators and barriers of nurses' speaking-up behaviour offer considerations and opportunities for healthcare leaders and managers. This could lead to improvement in patient safety through the establishment of a safety culture that facilitates nurses' speaking-up behaviour.

REPORTING METHOD

The review adhered to the ENTREQ guideline.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

No patient or public contribution has been made in this review.

Allied health new graduates’ voice behavior – new perspectives using realist synthesized narratives

Purpose

Effective voice behavior in healthcare workers is critical for patient safety, quality improvement and workforce well-being. A review of the literature on voice behavior in healthcare highlights that little is known about the voice behaviors of new graduates in allied health and that current theory, from medical and nursing research, does not adequately apply to this sector. New knowledge about voice behavior for this sector of the workforce will support education and healthcare institutions in building and sustaining a healthy voice behavior culture.

Design/methodology/approach

This paper reports on phase two of a two-phase study looking at the voice behavior experiences of new allied health graduates over one year. Using a realist perspective and narrative analysis, we uncover and illustrate what works, with whom and under what conditions.

Findings

Four synthesized narratives outline the contexts and mechanisms that result in different voice behavior outcomes – speaking up effectively, speaking up with unmet expectations, not speaking up and a reduction in speaking up over time. Experiences of positive interprofessional collaboration and reflective supervision supported effective voice behavior.

Research limitations/implications

This study used a case study approach, focusing on healthcare providers within a large New Zealand city and a cohort of 10 participants. Some researchers argue that small numbers limit the generalization of findings to different populations. Realists argue that, given the way in which knowledge is developed using realist methodologies, the resultant theory is portable. Interviews were conducted online during the COVID-19 pandemic. This may have impacted the connection between the interviewer and interviewee, causing the interviewees to not express their true thoughts. However, the interviewer did take time to connect with the interviewees and build trust over the three interviews over one year. Participants did not capture the diversity in the allied health workforce – most identified as female and none identified as Māori/Indigenous. And finally, participants could inhibit or exaggerate information due to the influence of social desirability. This does not appear to be a significant limitation in this study, given the many examples shared by the participants highlighted their challenges.

Practical implications

This study provides an in-depth exploration of how new graduates in allied health experience speaking up. Our findings enrich the knowledge of speaking up by using synthesized narratives to provide insights into what factors can enable a healthy speaking up culture within the new graduate allied health workforce. This is new knowledge that will be of interest at the individual, team and organizational levels of healthcare. The findings will support curriculum design and new graduate support frameworks for the education and health sectors. Highlighted in this study are the importance of the following factors in supporting speaking up for allied health new graduates: the employment of reflective supervision, purposeful facilitation of team belonging and interprofessional collaboration and tailored speaking up training for allied health new graduates and leaders in healthcare.

Originality/value

By taking a realist perspective and using narrative analysis, we gain an understanding of the voice behavior experiences of new graduates in allied health and the contextual factors and mechanisms that activate effective voice behavior in sub-acute and rehabilitation settings. These findings differ from nursing and medicine and highlight the benefits of reflective supervision and interprofessional collaborative practice.

What inhibits "speaking up" for patient safety among healthcare workers? A cross-sectional study in Malaysia

BACKGROUND

In healthcare, "speaking up" refers to when healthcare workers raise concerns regarding patient safety through questions, sharing information, or expressing their opinion to prevent harmful incidents and ensure patient safety. Conversely, withholding voice is an act of not raising concerns, which could be beneficial in certain situations. Factors associated with speaking up and withholding voices are not fully understood, especially in strong authoritarian societies, such as Malaysia. This study aimed to examine the factors associated with speaking up and withholding the voices of healthcare workers in Malaysia, thus providing suggestions that can be used in other countries facing similar patient safety challenges.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study was conducted in a tertiary hospital in Sarawak State, Malaysia. Data were collected from 474 healthcare workers from 43 departments using a self-administered questionnaire for speaking up and withholding voices measures in 4 weeks prior to data analysis as well as socio-demographic factors of healthcare workers (sex, age group, profession, department, weekly work hours for patient care, years of employment in the hospital, and the hierarchical level) and speaking up related climate of the working environment were recorded. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Logistic regression was performed to find out (adjusted) odds ratio of frequent speaking up and withholding voices.

RESULTS

Nurse compared to doctors and healthcare workers with short weekly working hours were more likely to speak up. Healthcare workers in emergency and intensive care department, those with short years of employment, and those who worked at low hierarchical levels were less likely to speak up. Healthcare workers in discouraging environment towards speaking up were more likely to withhold their voices.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates the characteristics of healthcare workers who speak up and those who withhold their voices in Malaysia. To ensure patient safety and prevent harm, it is essential to establish an encouraging environment that promotes speaking up and prevents withholding voices among healthcare worker, especially in circumstances where multiple types of healthcare workers with different socio-demographic backgrounds work together.

Adaptation and validation of a Korean version of the speaking up about patient safety questionnaire (KSUPS-Q)

BACKGROUND

Speaking up by healthcare providers is an essential assertive communication strategy for ensuring patient safety and preventing incidents. However, more is needed to know about speaking up and instruments to assess it in the Korean context. Therefore, we assessed the psychometric properties of the Korean version of the Speaking Up about Patient Safety Questionnaire (KSUPS-Q) for measuring speaking up-related behavior and climate among nurses.

METHODS

The translation and adaptation process followed the guidelines of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research and the World Health Organization. Content validity was assessed by a six-member expert panel using the content validity index. In total, 314 nurses participated in an online survey to examine the psychometric properties. Internal consistencies were tested using Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega. Confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to examine the subscales' construct. The convergent validity of the speaking up-related climate scale was assessed by testing correlations with teamwork and safety climate domains of the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire. In addition, we investigated the convergent validity of the speaking up-related behavior scale by examining its correlation with the climate scale.

RESULTS

The reliability of the 11-item behavior scale was satisfactory. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed that a three-subscale model (perceived concerns, withholding voice, and speaking up) was appropriate (CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.98, and SRMR = 0.05). Furthermore, the 11-item climate scale demonstrated satisfactory internal consistency. A three-subscale model (psychological safety, encouraging environment, and resignation) was confirmed (CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.97, and SRMR = 0.05). The convergent validity of the climate scale was verified based on correlations with the teamwork (r = 0.68, p < 0.001) and safety climate (r = 0.68, p < 0.001) domains of the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire. In addition, speaking up-related behavior and climate showed a significant association, indicating that the behavior scale is conceptually valid.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that the KSUPS-Q is a valid and reliable instrument in Korea. This instrument can help nurse managers simultaneously monitor the behavior and climate of their organizations and evaluate the outcomes of interventions to enhance speaking up. Future research is needed to explore diverse factors contributing to speaking up, including clinical roles, team relationships, and supportive culture, to identify areas requiring further improvement.

Defining Speaking Up in the Healthcare System: a Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Communication issues have been shown to contribute to healthcare errors. For years healthcare professionals have been told to "speak up." What "speak up" means is unclear, as it has been defined and operationalized in many ways. Thus, this study aimed to systematically review the literature regarding definitions and measurements of speaking up in the healthcare system and to develop a single, comprehensive definition and operationalization of the concept.

METHODS

PubMed, CINAHL, PsychoInfo, and Communication/Mass Media Complete databases were searched from 1999 to 2020. Publications were included if they mentioned speaking up for patient safety or any identified synonyms. Articles that used the term speaking up concerning non-health-related topics were excluded. This systematic review utilized Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 294 articles met the inclusion criteria, yet only 58 articles focused on speaking up. While the most common synonym terms identified were "speak up" and "raise concern," only 43 articles defined speaking up. Accordingly, a modified definition was developed for speaking up-A healthcare professional identifying a concern that might impact patient safety and using his or her voice to raise the concern to someone with the power to address it.

DISCUSSION

Speaking up is considered important for patient safety. Yet, there has been a lack of agreement on the definition and operationalization of speaking up. This review demonstrates that speaking up should be reconceptualized to provide a single definition for speaking up in healthcare.

An integrative systematic review of employee silence and voice in healthcare: what are we really measuring?

The history of inquiries into the failings of medical care have highlighted the critical role of communication and information sharing, meaning that speaking up and employee silence have been extensively researched. However, the accumulated evidence concerning speaking-up interventions in healthcare indicates that they achieve disappointing outcomes because of a professional and organizational culture which is not supportive. Therefore, there is a gap with regard to our understanding of employee voice and silence in healthcare, and the relationship between withholding information and healthcare outcomes (e.g., patient safety, quality of care, worker wellbeing) is complex and differentiated. The following integrative review is aimed at addressing the following questions; (1) How is voice and silence conceptualized and measured in healthcare?; and (2) What is the theoretical background to employee voice and silence?. An integrative systematic literature review of quantitative studies measuring either employee voice or employee silence among healthcare staff published in peer-reviewed journals during 2016-2022 was conducted on the following databases: PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CINAHL and Google Scholar. A narrative synthesis was performed. A review protocol was registered on the PROSPERO register (CRD42022367138). Of the 209 initially identified studies for full-text screening, 76 studies met the inclusion criteria and were selected for the final review (N = 122,009, 69.3% female). The results of the review indicated the following: (1) concepts and measures are heterogenous, (2) there is no unifying theoretical background, and (3) there is a need for further research regarding the distinction between what drives safety voice versus general employee voice, and how both voice and silence can operate in parallel in healthcare. Limitations discussed include high reliance on self-reported data from cross-sectional studies as well as the majority of participants being nurses and female staff. Overall, the reviewed research does not provide sufficient evidence on the links between theory, research and implications for practice, thus limiting how research in the field can better inform practical implications for the healthcare sector. Ultimately, the review highlights a clear need to improve assessment approaches for voice and silence in healthcare, although the best approach to do so cannot yet be established.

Testing the association between the enabling and enacting factors of patient safety culture and patient safety: structural equation modelling

BACKGROUND

Despite evidence linking a safety culture with patient safety, the processes by which aspect of safety culture influences patient safety are not yet well understood. Thus, this study aimed to test a theoretical model of the relationships between three enabling factors (supervisor/clinical leader support for patient safety, hospital management support for patient safety, and psychological safety), and four enacting factors of patient safety culture (handoffs and information exchange, teamwork, error reporting intention, and withholding voice) with nurse assessments of patient safety.

METHODS

A cross-sectional, descriptive correlational study design was used. Between May and June 2020, 526 nurses who provided direct care to patients in medical surgical units in three Korean hospitals completed an online survey that included four standardized scales or subscales. Structural equation modelling was used to test the hypothesized model.

RESULTS

Among the three enabling factors, psychological safety was associated with all four enacting factors, and all enacting factors were associated with overall patient safety. Hospital management support was associated with all enacting factors except teamwork, but supervisor/clinical leader support was associated with only handoffs and information exchange, and withholding voice. Thus, teamwork was influenced only by psychological safety. Findings demonstrate overall support for the theoretical model of safety culture wherein enabling factors influence enacting factors which, in turn, lead to patient safety outcomes, but emphasize the critical nature of psychological safety among nursing staff.

CONCLUSION

This study provides further insight into the importance of support from hospital management and unit supervisors/clinical leaders for patient safety to motivate and enable hospital nurses to enact behaviours necessary for patient safety. However, such support must also take the form of enhancing psychological safety for nursing staff.

Patient Safety Culture and Speaking Up Among Health Care Workers

PURPOSE

Although previous research showed the importance of safety culture on health care workers' speaking up behaviors, it is not clear how particular safety culture domains are associated with the speaking up behaviors of hospital staff. Also, researchers have suggested that health care workers' speaking up behaviors vary by profession, but there has been limited research into such differences. Thus, this study examined differences in perceptions of patient safety culture and the promotive and prohibitive speaking up behaviors of health care workers by profession and investigated the relationships between patient safety culture and the two types of speaking up behaviors.

METHODS

A descriptive correlational study was conducted using secondary data collected through an online survey of health care workers at a private, nonprofit, tertiary-level teaching hospital in South Korea. The sample (N = 831) consisted of nurses (54.0%), physicians (13.0%), and other licensed and unlicensed hospital personnel (33.0%). Analyses of variance were conducted to examine differences in study variables by profession. Hierarchical regression analyses were conducted to evaluate the effects of the seven patient safety culture factors on promotive and prohibitive voice after controlling for tenure and profession.

RESULTS

Perceptions of safety culture and promotive voice behaviors were higher for physicians compared with nurses. Communication openness, reporting patient adverse events, and unit supervisors' and hospital managements' support for patient safety were significant predictors of both types of voice behaviors.

CONCLUSION

Hospital administrators and unit managers should create a supportive environment where staff feel free to voice their concerns and suggestions. They should also pay attention to the varying perspectives held by different groups of hospital workers and their different voice behaviors. Knowing which dimensions of patient safety culture are most strongly related to health care workers' voice behaviors can guide patient safety improvement activities in health care organizations.

Speaking up about patient safety concerns: view of nursing students

BACKGROUND

"Speaking up" is considered an important patient safety behaviour. The main idea is to voice patient safety concerns; however, several studies revealed that the organisational culture can be obstructive. In previous studies, we already identified barriers for doctors, nurses and medical students. In the current study, we explore how nursing students use "speaking up" during their internship in an academic teaching hospital.

METHODS

Between 2019 and 2020, 212 nursing students were invited to take part in the survey. The validated Speaking Up about Patient Safety Questionnaire (SUPS-Q) was used to assess speaking up behaviours in nursing students. The SUPS-Q consisted of three behaviour related scales (11 items), three culture related scales (11 items), a question regarding barriers to speak up as well as a clinical vignette assessing a hypothetical speaking up situation.

RESULTS

In total, 118 nursing students took part in the survey (response rate: 56%). Most of them noticed specific safety concerns, observed errors or rule violations. The vignette was seen as very realistic and harmful to the patient. However, the majority responded that they did not speak up and remained silent. They reported a rather discouraging environment and high levels of resignation towards speaking up. However, more advanced students were less likely to speak up than less advanced students (p = 0.027). Most relevant barriers were fear of negative reaction (64%), reaction not predictable (62%) and ineffectiveness (42%).

CONCLUSIONS

Survey results of nursing students imply that speaking-up behaviours and remaining silent are common behaviours and coexist in the same individual. The clinical vignette and barriers to speaking up revealed that a hierarchical system does not support speaking-up behaviours. Organizational development is needed to foster professional teamwork, support attentive listening, encourage critical thinking, and problem-solving skills.

A concept analysis of psychological safety: Further understanding for application to health care

AIM

To clarify the concept of psychological safety in a healthcare context and to provide the first theoretical framework for improving interpersonal relationships in the workplace to better patient care.

DESIGN

A Rodgers' concept analysis.

METHODS

The concept analysis was conducted using a systematic search strategy on PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Ichushi-Web.

RESULTS

An analysis of 88 articles studying psychological safety in health care identified five attributes: perceptions of the consequences of taking interpersonal risks, strong interpersonal relationships, group-level phenomenon, safe work environment for taking interpersonal risks and non-punitive culture. The antecedents included structure/system factors, interpersonal factors and individual factors. The four consequences included performance outcomes, organizational culture outcomes, and psychological and behavioural outcomes.

Open organisational culture: what does it entail? Healthcare stakeholders reaching consensus by means of a Delphi technique

OBJECTIVES

Open organisational culture in hospitals is important, yet it remains unclear what it entails other than its referral to 'open communication' in the context of patient safety. This study aims to identify the elements of an open hospital culture.

METHODS

In this group consensus study with a Delphi technique, statements were constructed based on the existing patient safety literature and input of 11 healthcare professionals from different backgrounds. A final framework consisting of 36 statements was reviewed on inclusion and exclusion, in multiple rounds by 32 experts and professionals working in healthcare. The feedback was analysed and shared with the panel after the group reached consensus on statements (>70% agreement).

RESULTS

The procedure resulted in 37 statements representing tangible (ie, leadership, organisational structures and processes, communication systems, employee attitudes, training and development, and patient orientation) and intangible themes (ie, psychological safety, open communication, cohesion, power, blame and shame, morals and ethics, and support and trust). The culture themes' teamwork and commitment were not specific for an open culture, contradicting the patient safety literature. Thereby, an open mind was shown to be a novel characteristic.

CONCLUSIONS

Open culture entails an open mind-set and attitude of professionals beyond the scope of patient safety in which there is mutual awareness of each other's (un)conscious biases, focus on team relationships and professional well-being and a transparent system with supervisors/leaders being role models and patients being involved. Although it is generally acknowledged that microlevel social processes necessary to enact patient safety deserve more attention, research has largely emphasised system-level structures and processes. This study provides practical enablers for addressing system and microlevel social processes to work towards an open culture in and across teams.

The presence and potential impact of psychological safety in the healthcare setting: an evidence synthesis

INTRODUCTION

Psychological safety is the shared belief that the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking. Its presence improves innovation and error prevention. This evidence synthesis had 3 objectives: explore the current literature regarding psychological safety, identify methods used in its assessment and investigate for evidence of consequences of a psychologically safe environment.

METHODS

We searched multiple trial registries through December 2018. All studies addressing psychological safety within healthcare workers were included and reviewed for methodological limitations. A thematic analysis approach explored the presence of psychological safety. Content analysis was utilised to evaluate potential consequences.

RESULTS

We included 62 papers from 19 countries. The thematic analysis demonstrated high and low levels of psychological safety both at the individual level in study participants and across the studies themselves. There was heterogeneity in responses across all studies, limiting generalisable conclusions about the overall presence of psychological safety. A wide range of methods were used. Twenty-five used qualitative methodology, predominantly semi-structured interviews. Thirty quantitative or mixed method studies used surveys. Ten studies inferred that low psychological safety negatively impacted patient safety. Nine demonstrated a significant relationship between psychological safety and team outcomes. The thematic analysis allowed the development of concepts beyond the content of the original studies. This analytical process provided a wealth of information regarding facilitators and barriers to psychological safety and the development of a model demonstrating the influence of situational context.

DISCUSSION

This evidence synthesis highlights that whilst there is a positive and demonstrable presence of psychological safety within healthcare workers worldwide, there is room for improvement. The variability in methods used demonstrates scope to harmonise this. We draw attention to potential consequences of both high and low psychological safety. We provide novel information about the influence of situational context on an individual's psychological safety and offer more detail about the facilitators and barriers to psychological safety than seen in previous reviews. There is a risk of participation bias - centres involved in safety research may be more aligned to these ideals. The data in this synthesis are useful for institutions looking to improve psychological safety by providing a framework from which modifiable factors can be identified.

What became of the 'eyes and the ears'?: exploring the challenges to reporting poor quality of care among trainee medical staff

The importance of trainee medical staff in alerting Trusts to patient safety risks and low-quality care was established by the Francis Report, yet many remain hesitant about speaking up. Known barriers include lack of feedback, sceptical attitudes to the likelihood of change and fear of consequences. The author explores other factors including moral orientation in the workplace, role modelling by senior clinicians, discontinuity, 'normalisation of deviance', human reactions to burnout/moral injury, loyalty and the spectrum of motivation. The issues of absent feedback and fear are discussed in detail. Challenges met by those receiving reports are also described, such as how to collate soft intelligence, putting concerns into context (the 'bigger picture') and stewardship of resources. Initiatives to encourage reporting of trainees' concerns such as speak up guardians, 'Speak Up for Safety' campaign and simulation training are described. A proposal to embed proactive intelligence-gathering arrangements is presented.

Clinical coaches and patient safety - Just in time: A descriptive exploratory study

Patient safety in hospitals is a key priority. Clinical coaches who educate, support and coach staff to deliver safe, high quality care, are ideally placed to positively influence patient safety.

AIM

This study aimed to understand how clinical coaches in an education role, manage risk and support patient safety at the point of care.

BACKGROUND

Patient safety has developed from a find and fix reactive model towards an approach which focuses on human performance, aiming to understand how individuals adapt and respond in complex systems to ensure 'things go right'. Clinical coaches working as educators at the point of care, are uniquely placed to ensure 'things go right', supporting staff to anticipate and proactively respond to emerging issues, particularly when complex practice situations change unexpectedly. Clinical coach experiences of intervening 'just in time' to prevent errors incidents or omissions occurring at the point of care is unknown.

DESIGN

This was a descriptive exploratory study conducted with registered nurses working in the role of clinical coach (n = 29).

METHODS

Study data were collected through a purposefully designed survey.

RESULTS

Clinical coaches intervened 'just in time' across a variety of clinical situations including medication errors, clinical procedures, documentation, assessment skills and clinical handover. Lower skill mix, higher patient acuity and the commencement of new staff influenced clinical coach 'just in time' interventions. Most of the clinical coaches had intervened with both junior and senior members of staff. Overall, clinical coaches spent up to 3-4 h every day proactively managing risk across a variety of clinical situations and staff.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical coaches play an important role in ensuring patient safety by regularly intervening 'just in time' to prevent errors, omissions, or incidents from occurring at the point of care. The clinical coach role, which educates and supports staff to deliver safe, high quality care, makes a valuable contribution towards patient safety.

Speaking up about patient safety in psychiatric hospitals - a cross-sectional survey study among healthcare staff

Speaking up is an important communication strategy to prevent patient harm. The aim of this study was to examine speak up-related behaviour and climate for the first time in psychiatric hospitals. A cross-sectional survey was conducted among healthcare workers (HCWs) in six psychiatric hospitals with nine sites in Switzerland. Measures assessed speak up-related behaviour with 11 items organized in three scales (the frequency of perceived safety concerns, the frequency of withholding voice, and the frequency of speaking up). Speak up-related climate was assessed by 11 items organized in 3 subscales (psychological safety for speaking up, encouraging environment for speaking up, and resignation). Statistical analyses included descriptive statistics, reliability, correlations and multiple regression analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and analysis of variance for comparing mean scores between professional groups. A total of 817 questionnaires were completed (response rate: 23%). In different items, 45%-65% of HCWs reported perceived safety concerns at least once during the past four weeks. Withholding voice was reported by 13-25% of HCWs, and speaking up was reported by 53%-72% of HCWs. Systematic differences in scores were found between professional groups (nurses, doctors, psychologists) and hierarchical groups (lower vs higher status). The vignette showed that hierarchical level and perceived risk of harm for the patient were significant predictors for the self-reported likelihood to speak up. Situations triggering safety concerns occur frequently in psychiatric hospitals. Speaking up and voicing concerns should be further promoted as an important safety measure.

Speaking Up about Patient Safety in Perioperative Care: Differences between Academic and Nonacademic Hospitals in Austria and Switzerland

Purpose of the Study: In perioperative care, communication about patient safety concerns is both difficult and valuable. Research into speaking up has mostly been conducted in single countries; the aim of this study was to compare speaking up-related climate and behaviors in academic and nonacademic hospitals. Materials and Methods: The study is based on two surveys conducted in Austria and Switzerland. The Swiss survey was conducted in five nonacademic hospitals, the Austrian survey in one university hospital. Results: 768 questionnaires were returned (nonacademic: n = 360; response rate: 37%; academic: n = 408; response rate: 32%). There were differences (p < 0.001) concerning speaking up episodes (at least one episode of speaking up in the past four weeks) between nonacademic hospitals (68%) and the academic hospital (96%). Withholding voice was reported by 32% of nonacademic and 43% of academic staff (p = 0.003). The speak up-related climate in the Swiss sample was more positive. Nurses compared to doctors scored higher on all items of the "resignation scale." Important differences emerged in ratings of a clinical scenario of missed hand disinfection: Nonacademic health-care workers perceived the risk of harm for patients higher compared to academic (5.3 vs. 2.5; p < 0.001). Responders higher in hierarchy felt better with speaking up in nonacademic hospitals. Conclusions: The study is one of the first to address differences in academic and nonacademic hospitals in speaking up behaviors and demonstrated differences. This analysis helps to put local data in perspective and to target further activities for improvement.